"Let me start with a note of support. This is a very unsettling time for our team at the Society. Indeed it has been for the past three or four years as they have dealt with the transfer of activity from the Society to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, with the impacts of the recession, a series of changes that seek to improve the Society’s role and with the uncertainty from a number of debates going on within our membership. I know what I am about to say may add to that uncertainty, and I am sorry if it does, but I also know this - they all have the capacity to deal with this period too. I am proud of the dignified and enthusiastic way everyone at the Society conducts themselves on a daily basis and continues to do their best for our membership.

"I stress right up front that what I am about to say is a personal view rather than one authorised by the Board or Council of the Society. And let me also deal with those who will say “you are bound to say that, your job depends on it”. I may be the Chief Executive of the Society but I have never been in nor worried about a job for life and I have never shied away from change. Quite the opposite. My entire career has been based on managing change. Why am I saying this? Well contrary to the views of some I have no axe to grind in the current representation and regulation discussion. I have a clear mind albeit not a dispassionate one. I do believe in professions and I also believe they should self regulate in the interests of the client base they serve. The solicitors’ profession is no exception. That said, when the time comes to press forward with the outcome of the second referendum on whether representation and regulation should stay together or not, I and the committed and professional team at the Society will get on and deliver the will of the membership, whatever that is.

"That doesn’t mean I don’t have a view though. And as with most things that I think about, I start with the end in mind. If the vote is yes, to keeping representation and regulation together then that isn’t a vote for the status quo. Why? Because it’s raised enough debate that it is clear we need to change the way we do things so that these two roles can co-exist more happily as they seem to do in other professional bodies. As a minimum that needs to be addressed.

"But what if the vote is to separate them? What needs to happen then? Well I guess the Society’s Council would then have to lobby government to reform the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 and seek these two functions to lie in different bodies. There’s quite a lot in this Act that will need careful reconsideration. Now I could be wrong, but I believe most of our members who are seeking this referendum, think the way that this could be achieved would be to remove representation from the Society’s mandate. This would allow the infamous s92 of the Legal Services (Scotland) Bill to stay as it is and everyone is happier.

"But here’s an easier way for the Government to achieve the same end.

"If I was a government minister here’s what I might do. I might instead take away the Society’s regulatory functions and give them to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. Pass the Guarantee Fund to the SLCC to run and to raise levy for, the inspections regime; the setting of the master policy requirements, although clearly not the group procurement of it, which would be untenable for a statutory regulator; conduct investigation and interaction with the Discipline Tribunal; And maybe education and training standard setting.

"Why? Well first off, it wouldn’t require me to take the unpopular move amongst the electorate of setting up yet another government quango. The SLCC already exists and has some regulatory oversight so why not give it more. It also doesn’t have enough to do at present. I no longer need to negotiate with the Society’s Council and its members about percentages of lay membership of their Council – indeed I can ditch s92 of the Legal Services (Scotland) Bill – the SLCC is already wholly independent of the Society. I satisfy the consumer lobbies – who want to ditch self regulation of the profession- in one fell swoop. And the sweetest part of all is that the profession itself has asked me to do this.

"This of course is only one possible outcome. I personally think it’s a likely one. I also believe though that, it would be unpopular amongst our membership. Those of us battling on budgets with the SLCC or dealing with some of the outcomes of its decisions that we think are unreasonable, are frustrated at our lack of any control over the operation and decision making, will tell you why it’s not a good idea to hand over the entire regulation of the profession. Taxation without representation as one member put it.

"I think a far better approach is to further negotiate with the Government on s92 to deal with the on-going worries of some of the profession, let the Society continue as the self disciplining solicitors’ professional body and leave the Solicitors (Scotland) Act as it is. There is more than enough change for our members in the Legal Services Bill without opening up any further Pandora’s box.

"As WW Jacobs cautioned in the Monkey’s Paw tale: “ Be careful what you wish for, you may receive it"."

Lorna Jack is Chief Executive of the Law Society